[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0812160345t1cca65eg34064dbbcafcd280@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:45:14 +0900
From: "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [mmotm and linux-next][PATCH] irq: enclose irq_desc_lock_class in CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>> > actually, this breaks the build on !SPARSEIRQ because we will use that
>> > class in the non-sparseirq case. So we've converted a build warning to
>> > a build failure ;-)
>>
>> Please give me your .config and tell me your arch. my ia64 box (ia64 is
>> !SPARSEIRQ) can build the akpm patch.
>
> The expected build failure is obvious from reading the code:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> void early_init_irq_lock_class(void)
> {
> #ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
> struct irq_desc *desc;
> int i;
>
> for_each_irq_desc(i, desc) {
> if (!desc)
> continue;
>
> lockdep_set_class(&desc->lock, &irq_desc_lock_class);
>
> Note that it's an #ifndef sparseirq, not an #ifdef sparseirq condition.
I see. thanks.
It seems my first proposal is better.
or, following #ifdef ?
#if defined(CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS)
/*
* lockdep: we want to handle all irq_desc locks as a single lock-class:
*/
static struct lock_class_key irq_desc_lock_class;
#endif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists